|
Post by atolm on Jun 16, 2016 23:36:48 GMT
Furthermore, you claim the morals of fictional cultures in PDS must be based on the morals of the culture the authors came from? "not to mention the most basic facts of 20th century Japanese history and culture". That's incredibly narrow minded, man. It's a work of FICTION. So you're basically saying an author is incapable of thinking outside their own moral perspective to write a work that breathes unique life into a fictional world and empathize with what their characters' beliefs might be. To read a Japanese narrative and say "well I must judge this on Japanese culture/morals cause that must be what the author intended" is truly prejudicial on your part. The human imagination is greater than that.
An atheist can write a story about figures in Christianity in such a way that isn't presenting judgement there is no god. To say "well, he must be lecturing on the futility of believing in a false God cause he's an atheist" is incredibly ignorant. Isn't it entirely possible the figures in Christianity make for great reading?
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 0:08:27 GMT
What Martiniii is saying is, if you believe morality is subjective, then you can't condemn the Orlando shooter. If you think it's wrong, but someone else thinks it's right, then you have no better reason than they do to believe the way you do. Because morality, to you, is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
It's the consistent logical conclusion to moral relativism. I think a great practical modern day example of taking moral subjectivity too far are the HAE people who say being fat is healthy and preferable... but anyway...
Edge didn't know if the monsters were good or evil due to what Crayman told him. Was it certainly evil? Well, let me compare it to this. If you listened to Obama's speech in Hiroshima without knowing anything about WW@, you'd think that the USA was evil for nuking Japan, but when you put in into context that nuking Japan was the only way to end the war and save millions of lives it becomes a lot less evil. It basically becomes the trolley thought experiment. Which is interesting. If you're forced into committing one of two choices and both choices would be evil alone, but clearly one is less evil than the other. Does that turn the less evil choice into a righteous and moral decision? In the end though, Edge was told the monsters were necessary for humans to survive. He didn't know if destroying the monsters would destroy humanity as well. He was conflicted and wasn't sure what the outcome would be to his choices.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 17, 2016 0:30:44 GMT
What Martiniii is saying is, if you believe morality is subjective, then you can't condemn the Orlando shooter. If you think it's wrong, but someone else thinks it's right, then you have no better reason than they do to believe the way you do. Because morality, to you, is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Morality is subjective. It's in the definition, a set values or beliefs belonging to an individual or society. There is NO version of morality that everyone agrees on. His comparison to gravity was ridiculous. If I step off the roof off a 3rd story building I am going to plummet to the ground at a specific rate of acceleration until I go splat. This outcome can be accurately predicted using equations, and regardless of what culture sees me do it or feels about the act, the outcome is going to be the same. According to my morals, I do not condone the slaughter that took place in Orlando. If still alive the shooter should be punished. I believe this because it's part of my morals. This doesn't mean I don't believe the shooter had his own set of morals, I just don't give a damn what they were. You saying I can't judge if I believe morality is subjective is in fact a MORAL belief on your part. It's just like if I thought you had a horrible taste in music. Good music is up to the listener, I'm still going to think you have a horrible taste in music.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 1:35:29 GMT
That's interesting. Let me ask you a silly question, since morality is subjective, what makes his values are less valid than your own? Would you say his values are incorrect? If so, what makes his values wrong and your values right? Is it arbitrary?
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 17, 2016 1:54:05 GMT
That's interesting. Let me ask you a silly question, since morality is subjective, what makes his values are less valid than your own? Would you say his values are incorrect? If so, what makes his values wrong and your values right? Is it arbitrary? I honestly don't understand why this is so complicated. I already answered this. Good music is up to the listener, I still think you have terrible taste in music and am judging you in doing so. Even after I just said "good music is up to the listener" I'm going to say your music is bad. This isn't a contradiction, it's an opinion because what I believe to be good music is what pleases MY ear. I morally feel his morals are BAD because I think it's crazy to kill people because of their personal orientation. Simple as that. And as I said before, Your line of questioning with the preoccupation with needing to weigh the validity of others' morals, is in fact itself a unique moral belief you yourself hold that obviously I don't share.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 2:05:19 GMT
Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. Essentially you're saying morals are arbitrary. There's no logic or reasoning behind why one person's set of morals is better than another's. So when you judge the Orlando shooter's actions and moral compass you're doing it strictly on emotion without any logic or rational.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 17, 2016 2:48:04 GMT
I really don't know how else I can explain it to you. We're going around in circles. According to my logic and reasoning killing people based on personal orientation is wrong. This train of thought is due to the society I was raised in. Maybe according to his logic they were sinners or something, I don't know or really care. That doesn't mean I can't imagine him having those morals and why he chose to act the way he did.
And again the statement you made: " if you believe morality is subjective, then you can't condemn the Orlando shooter. If you think it's wrong, but someone else thinks it's right, then you have no better reason than they do to believe the way you do" is itself a moral belief that you hold.
My better reason is my society and the rules we chose to live by.
lest you forget, we PAY people to judge.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 2:51:43 GMT
OK, so we agree that morals aren't arbitrary. You say you've developed your sense of morality from society and the rules we chose to live by. Why did we chose to live by those rules? They weren't arbitrary were they?
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 17, 2016 3:20:46 GMT
First of all, that's an incredibly super loaded question with more factors than I can list. Environment, social structure and consequences, trial and error, changing religious beliefs or lack there of, famine, struggle, war. etc.. etc.. , but that in no way means that morality is absolute and will reach a finite conclusion. They are constantly evolving to suit our needs. Like I said earlier, it's an invention. Not a discovery. and like any invention, mankind will constantly tinker.
I'm going to rephrase this. Different groups or individuals will have gone through their own unique set of circumstances that led to their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 4:10:19 GMT
***
It's more of a leading question. Which is equally unfun, but not at all disingenuous like a loaded question.
I find it rather simple to break it down, all societies base their morals off of an overall desire for good health, happiness, and advancement for the largest number of their own people. Therefore we can ascertain these fundamentals are inherent to the definition of morality.
While you can dig up the OED definition and tell me, "See, it doesn't say that." It doesn't have to. It's an implicit connotation to the word. Much like our understanding of the word "racism" inherently implies prejudice or injustice. The dictionary definition lacks those qualifying words, but if I were to tell you scientific studies have overwhelmingly proven black skin burns less and has less of a chance of developing skin cancer to fair skinned people and is therefore better than white skin at resisting the sun. The vast majority of people would find it odd to call that a racist statement due to the fact it lacks prejudice or bias, but the dictionary definition of the word is crystal clear. That statement, according to the dictionary, is 100% racist.
Which leads me back to my initial statement on the topic. If you apply the dictionary definition as strictly as possible morals are subjective. In a practical sense and in the way we use and understand the word they very much so are objective. The same way color is objective even if you're color blind and can't see it. Light is still reflected off a surface in a particular spectrum even if you can't see it. There's always an objective moral answer to questions of what gives the greatest health, happiness, and advancement to a particular action even if we don't know what answer is the best.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 17, 2016 5:08:26 GMT
I find it rather simple to break it down, all societies base their morals off of an overall desire for good health, happiness, and advancement for the largest number of their own people. Therefore we can ascertain these fundamentals are inherent to the definition of morality. I would agree with you that probably the best you could hope for morality would be the least amount of suffering possible, but your statement is simply not true. There are plenty of societies in which women are 2nd class citizens. Either through lack of education or forced surgeries. Even when the population of them may be a bit more than 50%. Are you saying this society is truly seeking the happiness and good health for the majority of it's citizens? Even if they truly believe this is for the "good health" of their women, wouldn't that still be a subjective opinion? Or it's possible they don't care at all.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 5:52:45 GMT
Of course. Do you think these societies carry out the barbaric traditions they do because they are purely sadistic? Or by stroke of luck or fate the backward Middle Eastern countries simply have extremely high populations of psychopaths and sadists? Perhaps they've been misled or bullied into their beliefs by psychopaths with aims at power. Or perhaps old barbaric traditions were necessary for humanity 2000 years ago, like not eating pig, the dirty animal.
They're clearly wrong, but you can't explain their cultural practices by a bizarre widespread acceptance in simple sadism. For instance, do you believe there are hundreds of millions of sadists in the Middle East?
|
|
|
Post by bultje112 on Jun 17, 2016 7:21:54 GMT
Where did you "ace" philosophy? an online course at Devry? How do you not grasp what bultje112 is saying? I believe art and literature exist, that doesn't mean what constitutes "good" versions of them is concrete for all time. What is good art? That's an ambiguous question. Is it morally wrong to eat meat? That depends on who you ask, doesn't mean those who answer differently don't believe in morality. Morality to exist as a concept requires a constant go between about what is right vs wrong. That IS morality. Gravity has no such requirements, it's existence just is. The fact that people have different views on morality doesn't mean that morality is purely subjective, any more than the fact that people have different views on science means that science is purely subjective, or the fact that people have different views on religion means that whether or not there is a god is purely subjective. Besides, belief in subjective morality doesn't change my point; denying the existence of objective morality while simultaneously arguing moral right and wrong is plainly hypocritical. At this point I must step out of the discussion. For me to enjoy a debate, I need to be able to respect my opponents, and when I'm being asked to explain why killing thousands of innocent people solely to advance one's personal political agenda is morally wrong, then we've gone far, far beyond that point. In fact, we've gone even farther than that due to Atolm and Bultje112's trying to impose their confused idea of morality on a fictional work which obviously does not share it. It's ridiculous enough to say that massacres like the recent incident in Orlando, Florida are justifiable; saying that the destruction of Zoah and the capital are intended to be morally ambiguous is not merely ridiculous, it's willfully ignoring the obvious intent of the authors (not to mention the most basic facts of 20th century Japanese history and culture). I wouldn't have the patience for this even under normal circumstances, and with the recent practical application of Atolm and Bultje112's views of morality in Orlando, it's a sure bet that I'd soon lose my temper if I continued to participate in this discussion. maybe step out of the discussion and step out of your gigantic ego as well. nothing was being said about orlando
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 17, 2016 22:43:03 GMT
sonnington, I'd thought I'd use your example of objective morality to make my final point.
When you say there's always an objective answer out there that deals with ultimate of health, well being, progress etc.., you run into the same problem Theists do when they explain their version of objective morality, that being hubris. In both examples humans are given some sort of special status or preferential treatment in the universe. In the theists' case, that being out of all the galaxies and possible worlds in the basically infinite expanse of the universe, some sort of intelligent being decided to pay special attention to one species on on specific planet and tell us what to do.
In your definition, of the ultimate of X, X is still based on the subjective desires and concepts of mankind. You are then projecting that out as if it applies to everything. What are the odds, again based on the expanse of the universe that there is some best answer that just so happens to fit with our wants and understandings based on all the possible forms life could take? Even if you say we aren't special and health is the benchmark for all living things you still have a problem. Right here on earth there are living creatures (parasites, bacteria etc..) who's "well being and overall health" requires us to be the opposite. I don't believe humans are special in the universe. I don't think there's some sort of grand concept ultimate answer that takes us specifically and our unique needs or concepts into account. "subjective morality" is a tautology
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 18, 2016 0:04:23 GMT
I don't understand what you're trying to say in your post...
Let me give you an analogy. If I ask you, "What's the best song in the world?" You will logically and rightfully tell me it's subjective, everyone has their own personal taste in music. Then I qualify my question and ask you, "What's the best song in the world that the largest number of people will enjoy listening to?" Even if you don't have the answer, there's still a singular objective answer to that question.
That's exactly what I've done in my post that starts with three asterisks. I've narrowed down, explained, and qualified where the basis of human morality comes from. It has a basis in self survival, survival of the pack through good health, happiness/contentment, and the advance of your people/tribe. All societies and all moral codes stem from these ideas.
|
|